Today's conditions brought to you by the Bush Junta -
marionettes of their hyperdimensional puppet masters - Produced and
Directed by the CIA, based on an original script by Henry
Kissinger, with a cast of billions.... The "Greatest Shew on
Earth," no doubt, and if you don't have a good sense of humor,
don't read this page! It is designed to reveal the "unseen."
If you can't stand the heat of Objective Reality, get out of the
kitchen!

The
material presented in the linked articles does not necessarily reflect
the views or opinions of the editors. Research on your own and if you
can validate any of the articles, or if you discover deception and/or
an obvious agenda, we will appreciate if you drop us a line! We often
post such comments along with the article synopses for the benefit of
other readers. As always, Caveat Lector!

ISRAEL is working on a
biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to
Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon,
targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel's response to
Iraq's threat of chemical and biological attacks.

A
scientist there said the task was hugely complicated because both
Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: "They have,
however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in
the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the
Iraqi people."

It is widely accepted that Israel has the largest
stockpile of nuclear weapons in the region, and it is assumed that
this applies to their stockpiles of biological and chemical
weapons. A quick search on the web turned up a long list of
articles on the subject, including the following:

Tests carried out by an
Israeli secret laboratory recently killed four persons and other 25
have been reported wounded in Neis Zayouna district near Tel Aviv,
an Israeli daily reported.

Israel flatly denied the
report. "No person has ever been killed in a work accident at the
Biological Institute since its inception 45 years ago," Prime
Minister Netanyahu's media advisor stated today.

This just happens to be the Institute cited above.
And if these deaths were due to field tests, they wouldn't be "work
accidents". But it is evidence that something is going on in Israel
that could be related to the development of these types of weapons.
There is also this comment from Ariel Sharon, while he was still
Foreign Minister. His attitude hasn't changed in the intervening
years as his active sabotage of the so-called "Peace Map"
shows.

What
is interesting is that, though I received quite a few Emails from
the Zionist community, none denied the accuracy of the story.
Instead, they brashly admitted it was true, then added it was
necessary because Israel needed to defend itself from its Arab
neighbors. What is most telling is that many letters included
references to Arabs that were derogatory and dehumanizing. That
such a destructive philosophy is accepted by so many uncritically
in Israel explains much of the vicious thuggery performed against
the Palestinians over the last four months (not to mention the last
33 years).

These comments are completely in keeping with
Sharon's, so we can put a high probability that Israel is
developing something along these lines.

The
progress on the Human Genome Project now makes it possible to
target specific groups of individuals based upon certain genetic
signatures. This is the logical next step in the progression of
biological weapons. These weapons have been around for thousands of
years. The Romans used to dump dead animals into the water supply
of their enemies to inflict disease. The American "settlers" used
small pox in blankets to target the Native American populations.
The American Native population is still subjected to this type of
attack:

In
this country, continuing a historic policy toward Native Americans,
it has been revealed that the American Indian Health Service
(IHS—funded by the Federal Government, who employ the doctors
and nurses) coerced Native American men and women into forced
sterilizations in the early to mid 1970s. The General
Accounting Office (GAO) estimated that 3,400 people (mostly women)
underwent the treatment, but their study only covered four of
twelve IHS regions for four years.

Activists put the
estimate much higher, at 60,000 to 70,000. This, coupled with
the suspicion raised by the hantavirus outbreak in the Four Corners
region of Arizona/New Mexico/Colorado/Utah keeps suspicion and
fingers pointed at the federal government and at least some
government policies toward the American Indian population.
(Hantavirus is one of many "new" diseases that have come under
suspicion of having their origins in genetic engineering or
biowarfare labs.)

As
reported in a 1994 Project Censored update, Utah's Dugway Proving
Grounds biowarfare research site was also reopened despite local
residents' protests over fears that the facility was originally
closed because of safety concerns. Fort Dietrick, the site of the
most notorious CIA drug and army biowarfare research in the United
States now houses major research facilities of the National Cancer
Institute, raising issues of conflict (or collusion) or
interest.

But with the development of the chemical industry,
bio-warfare took a new turn. Greg Bishop, in the article referred
to above, first published at konformist.com, looks at some of the
major points:

[T]his "theoretical
possibility" was recognized over 25 years ago, if not before. It
was originally brought to the attention of potential customers with
the publication of an article in the Military Review of November
1970.

This
journal for command-level military personnel was published by the
US Army Command and General Staff College in Fort Leavenworth,
Kansas. The feature, entitled "Ethnic Weapons," authored by Carl A.
Larson, outlines the history, desirability, and possibilities of
engineered biological pathogens which would affect only those races
which historically have no natural defense against certain "enzyme
inhibitors."

Larson is listed as head of
the "Department of Human Genetics at the Institute of Genetics,
Lund, Sweden" as well as a licensed physician. The Hippocratic oath
was apparently not administered in Sweden when Larson received his
accreditation.

Larson explains that many
of the chemical activities and functions within the human body are
caused by the interactions of enzymes. One of the more significant
activities enabled by enzyme chemical reactions are the contraction
and relaxation of muscle tissue. If the activities of these enzymes
are blocked, the victim will be paralyzed, even to the point of
death by asphyxiation.

Not coincidentally, the
enzyme-blocking action of compounds called organophosphates were
discovered in Germany in the 1930s when experimental insecticides
killed the people unlucky enough to have used them. This discovery
led to the mass production of a substance named "Trilon," later
used to impressive effect in the extermination of groups of people
the Nazis considered little more than insects. This substance and
others of similar makeup became known as "nerve
gas."

A
concentration of 40 milligrams per cubic meter can kill in about 10
minutes. Stronger agents were later developed which can do the job
with a single drop on the skin.

[...] Larson is even more
explicit in a way that would probably never make it into the
mainstream press. In a passage that would make Doctor Strangelove
proud, he muses uncontrollably on the possibilities of
genetically-sensitive chemicals to subdue enemy
populations:

"Friendly forces would
discriminatingly use incapacitants in entangled situations to give
friend and foe a short period of enforced rest to sort them out. By
gentle persuasion, aided by psychochemicals, civilians in enemy
cities could be reeducated. The adversary would use incapacitants
to spare those whom he could use for slaves."

This
was published in a serious, staid professional journal read by US
military strategists. He concludes with the statement that "the
functions of life [now] lie bare to attack."

According to Charles Piller
and Keith Yamamoto in their 1988 book Gene Wars, Larson's
article was the first time that the subject of ethnically targeted
CBWs was broached publicly, and that in "the military's private
circles it was old news." The authors further state that in
1951 the Mechanicsburg, PA Naval Supply Depot was the site of a
classified test using a benign organism delivered to personnel to
mimic the behavior of an actual bioweapon: "

According to documents
declassified in the late 1970s, the site was chosen because 'Within
this system there are employed large numbers of laborers, including
many Negroes, whose incapacitation would seriously affect the
operation of the supply system."

The black workers in the
Depot were supposedly more susceptible to a strain of Valley Fever
than were whites, but instead of using the actual virus, a
substitute fungal organism was used. Valley Fever is more often
fatal to blacks than to whites. It was recently revealed that the
truth and reconciliation hearings in South Africa had presented
witnesses who testified that scientists working for the apartheid
regime had pursued efforts along similar lines.

Another possible example of
field testing of ethnic weapons (or at least an interesting case
for study by those interested in their development) may be the
famed "Four Corners" virus, which seems only to affect Native
Americans living in northern New Mexico and Arizona. Most
reports identified or compared the disease to the Hantavirus, which
killed victims relatively quickly following the occurrence of a
prolonged fever and fluid which rapidly filled the lungs and
asphyxiated the patient. Supposedly contracted through deer mice
droppings, the mystery disease has claimed at least a dozen victims
in the last ten years.

The most recent outbreak
occurred this last summer [1999], coming on the heels of El
Niño, which the major news media blamed for the renewed
threat. Some area residents believe that the virus may have been
released either accidentally or intentionally from a bioweapons
cache at Fort Wingate, an army facility a few miles east of Gallup.
The munitions storage at Wingate is now officially
closed.

We learn that the work on such weapons was begun in
Nazi Germany. The victims of these weapons were largely Jews. When
Larson published his paper in 1970, "the military's private circles
it was old news." Which means it had been discussed for a long time
by the US military, most likely with the Nazis brought into the US
after World War II via Operation Paperclip. Tests were carried out
as far back as 1951 on Blacks working at the Mechanicsburg, PA
Naval Supply Depot. For more information on tests carried out by
the US government against its own citizens, refer to our
timeline.

An early form of ethnic specific weapon were the
malororants, developed to control crowds (of people dissenting
against the Bush Reich, perhaps?).

Almost sixty years ago, the US developed a nauseating 'bathroom
odor' chemical for use as a weapon. But according to the Army,
the old malodorant will not work outside of the US and Western
Europe, because "it was found that people in many areas of the
world do not find 'fecal odor' to be offensive, since they smell it
on a regular basis." Therefore, according to the Army, new
agents are needed for overseas missions. These new malodorants are
to be specifically adapted for their victims. According to a 1998
document: "The objective of this work is the development of a
comprehensive set of [malodorants] that can be applied against
any population set around the world to influence their
behavior."

The
documents describe the Army research procedure. A group of subjects
selected "based on a diversity of geographic origins and cultural
heritage" is systematically exposed to candidate malodorants to
develop "culture-response data" based on ethnic categories. That
data is aggregated into "odor response profiles" that suggest the
types and quantities of malodorants necessary to "elicit a
favorable behavioral response" (i.e. incapacitation, panic, or
flight) when used for crowd control on a particular ethnic
group.

[...] Whether the
malodorants work or fail, research on any ethnic weapon raises
serious legal questions and could set a very dangerous precedent.
If the Pentagon saw any major legal barriers to ethnic weapons
it would not have approved the malodorant research. The
Pentagon's conclusion that ethnic weapons are permissible must be
challenged.

As horrible as these weapons are in their practice
and in what they reveal about the people developing them, it was
the work on the Human Genome that really opened the door to a new
generation of bioweapons, weapons that could be fine-tuned to one's
genetic make-up. We have been subjected to reams of paper and hours
of air-time discussing the benefits of genetic research, the
ability to target individual genes to "repair" them. Look at the
flip-side:

A
two-part story in the Washington Post on April 20 and 21 revealed
that biological agents developed by the South African government
during its apartheid days have fallen into private hands.
Written by Post reporters Joby Warrick and John Mintz, the piece
noted that unique, race-specific strains of biotoxins were
available on the world market – for the right price or the
right ideology.

[...] The top-secret
program that Basson directed was called Project Coast, and it
lasted from 1981 to 1993. The South African National Defense Force
created it at a time when the white-minority regime was under
increasing threat by indigenous black South Africans. Daan Goosen,
the former director of Project Coast's biological research
division, told the Post he was ordered by Basson to develop ways
"to suppress population growth among blacks" and to "search for a
'black bomb,' a biological weapon that would select targets based
on skin color."

[...] The Washington Post
even noted, "Goosen says many scientists kept copies of
organisms and documents in order to continue work on 'dual-use'
projects with commercial as well as military applications." A May
2002 story on Project Coast in the Wall Street Journal reported
that Goosen said he has been "visited by scores of people looking
for 'stuff to kill the blacks.'" Race-specific weapons naturally
are in hot demand among racists, so it's no surprise that South
Africa's race-specific research is highly coveted.

[...] Reported links
between Israel's ethnic weapons and South Africa's Project Coast
are tentative; some would say tenuous. But the possibility of such
links is terrifying, and justifies as much scrutiny as was focused
on Iraq's imaginary arsenal.

It
also appears that the anthrax incidents of 2001, in which five
people died and 13 were sickened, may also have a South African
connection. The Post noted that officials found evidence in a
Frederick, Maryland, pond that may explain how the perpetrators of
the deadly attacks used water to handle the lethal toxin without
infecting themselves or loosing the anthrax spores.

On
May 11, the Post said the water theory is the result of the FBI's
interest in one person, Steven J. Hatfill, a medical doctor and
bioterrorism expert who formerly worked for the U.S. Army, and who
lists South African diplomas in diving and underwater medicine on
his résumé.

A
June 2002 article in the Hartford Courant reported that Hatfill
also worked with a guerilla unit of the white-supremacist Rhodesian
army from 1978 to 1980, when "an anthrax outbreak killed hundreds
and sickened thousands of villagers." He also lived in South
Africa, "where he completed various military-medical
assignments."

The Apartheid regime in South Africa. Israel. The
United States. Not the most progressive regimes in the
world.

Note the reference to the Great Anthrax Scare
following 9/11, the ability to manipulate the anthrax virus without
getting infected. And the connection of this to Steven J. Hatfill.
Curious, isn't it, how the anthrax story just died when it was
discovered that the strain used to attack Americans wasn't from a
foreign sourse but came a military base in Maryland?

PURCHASE, N.Y. -- On this first anniversary of the anthrax
attacks, a number of conclusions can be drawn even without an
arrest by the FBI. First, the strain and properties of the
weaponized anthrax found in the letters show that it originated
within the U.S. biodefense program, where the necessary expertise
and access are found. Government officials recognized that the
anthrax source was domestic less than two weeks after they learned
of the letters, and nothing in their investigation has led them to
say otherwise since.

One
can also conclude that, given the origin of the anthrax and the
warnings contained in the letters, the perpetrator's motive was not
to kill but rather to raise public fear and thereby spur Congress
to increase spending on biodefense. In this, the attacks have been
phenomenally successful.[...]

Although biodefense has gotten a shot in the arm, it is
important to understand that the goal of defending against
bioweapons is not primarily public protection--which is largely
impossible, as last year's attacks demonstrated.

It is rather "to allow the military forces of the United
States to survive and successfully complete their operational
missions ... in battlespace environments contaminated with chemical
or biological warfare agents," according to the annual report
of the Department of Defense's Chemical and Biological Defense
Program. [...]

Two
weeks ago, I attended an informal meeting in Geneva where diplomats
from six continents struggled in the face of U.S. Intransigence to
map out a joint strategy for combating the global biological
threat. The United States had demanded that a formal Biological
Weapons Convention conference, scheduled to take place during two
weeks in November, should instead disband in one day with only an
agreement not to meet again until 2006.

To
make sure that the American resolve prevails in this setting where
international consensus is de rigueur, the U.S. demand was
accompanied by an overt threat to disrupt any further proceedings
with accusations that would make productive international action
impossible.

At
that Geneva meeting, the assembled diplomats, representing the
political spectrum from our closest allies to declared enemies,
were uniformly frustrated. They find it hard to comprehend why a
country that has just been the victim of bioterrorism should stand
in the way of peaceful efforts supported by all its allies to deter
bioterrorism.

The following article suggests that the evidence
for a link between the Israeli program and the South African
program is neither tentative nor tenuous as the above would
suggest. It is the same author writing earlier. Perhaps he found
new info. Perhaps something else happened...

Goosen's comments jibe well
with conclusions reached by South Africa's recently concluded Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, which heard testimony that Wouter
Basson, the director of the country's chemical-biological warfare
program, conducted extensive research on weapons that exclusively
targeted blacks.

Incidentally, the
commission's concluding report noted that South Africa's
chemical-biological weapons team received considerable assistance
from their American counterparts during the apartheid era. And
it's easy to see why: Ethno bombs are a dream weapon on a planet so
preoccupied with ethnic conflicts. Of course, that's also why such
weapons are so remarkably menacing.

[...] The article noted that the ethno-bomb claims were
given further credibility by a report in "Foreign Report," a
publication of the respected Jane's group, that Israeli scientists
used some of "the South African research in trying to develop an
'ethnic bullet' . . ."

Once more the thread comes back to the US: "South
Africa's chemical-biological weapons team received considerable
assistance from their American counterparts during the apartheid
era".

So let's look more at America's links to the
development of these weapons. We saw above that this started after
World War II. But, in fact, there are links back to the Eugenics
program started in the US at the turn of the century.

The
U.S. has a long history of interest in such genetic research.
The current home of the Human Genome Project is the Cold Springs
Harbor laboratory on Long Island, NY—the exact site of the
notorious Eugenics Research Office that was started in 1910 by the
Harriman family. The project’s 1910 agenda included
governmental imposition of sanctions on such human rights as
reproduction, and on U.S. immigration, based on the alleged
inferiority of particular ethnic groups.

The Eugenics Research
Project established medical and psychological conditions that would
qualify one for sterilization or euthanasia. Prominent advocates of
the program such as the Rockefeller family, Henry Ford, and
Margaret Sanger helped smooth the way for the passage of forcible
sterilization laws in 25 states. These laws allowed the forcible
sterilization of tens of thousands of people, mostly of minority
status, during the first half of the 20th century.

So we have one policy, begun in the early 20th
century, funded by the Rockefellers, Henry Ford, the Harrimans,
many of the same people who were financing the Nazi Party in
Germany during the thirties. The work goes underground after the
Second World War until it reemerges as part of the new "genetic
research".

By
K.P. Kavanaugh
Journal of the Federation of American Scientists (F.A.S.)
Volume 52, Number 2
March/April 1999

It
has long been rumored that modern biological weapons could be
designed to attack specific vulnerabilities of particular ethnic
groups. Early in the development of the US offensive biological
weapons program Colonel Creasey, Chief of Research and Engineering
of the US Chemical Corps, suggested that agents may be selected
because of known susceptibility of the target
population.

This
shows that the differential susceptibility of different populations
to various diseases had been considered at that time and, according
to scientists at Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA),
is continuing today.

Indeed ethnic-specific
biological warfare predated the advent of the biotechnology
revolution. Smallpox was almost certainly deliberately used against
the Native Americans centuries ago and there are other examples.
U.S. and British officials believe an ethnic-specific weapon would
be used today if it became available during a severe conflict
between two deeply antagonistic groups. [...]

Today, warnings are coming
not only from the medical community, but also from other specially
credible sources. There have been indications, for example, that
the US Secretary of Defense is concerned about the possible
development of genetic weapons.

In
June 1997, Jane's Defense Weekly reported that
Secretary Cohen "quoted other reports about what he called 'certain
types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could
eliminate certain ethnic groups or races.'" Then after a later
interview with the Defense Secretary in August 1997, it was stated
again in Jane's Defense Weekly that "he also continued to
insist that the science community is 'very close' to being able to
manufacture 'genetically engineered pathogens that could be
ethnically specific'".

Early Accounts, Then
Silence

In
accounts during the 1980s of the possible development of genetic
weapons, a frequent source of scientific data was a paper by Carl
A. Larson, then head of the Department of Human Genetics,
University of Lund, Sweden, published in the journal Military
Review in November 1970. Larson's paper was mainly concerned with
the possible development of a new range of chemical weapons,
including incapacitants.

Individual differences in
response to chemical agents had been known for some time, but
Larson reviewed what was known of differences between populations
in reaction to drugs and saw the basis of such population
differences as genetic. Larson seems to have been pointing to
possible future developments rather than near-term practical
possibilities. The question is whether, almost 30 years later: have
genetically engineered weapons become a practical
possibility?

There does not appear to
have been subsequent detailed open publication by reputable
scientists of the application of modern biotechnology to
genetically -engineered weapons until the 1990s. Then in 1992 the
journal Defense News carried a report which noted a scientist
arguing that genetic engineering may enable us to:

...recognize DNA from
different people and attach different things that will kill only
that group of people...You will be able to determine the difference
between blacks and whites and Asians and Jews and Swedes and Finns
and develop an agent that will kill only a particular
group.

Shown this quotation in
February, scientists within the DOD confirmed that
defensive research was being done specifically in this
area. Thus the threat would appear to slide along the
spectrum from the merely theoretical through the potentially
possible to the patently workable.

Such
arguments have been set out at greater length in an appendix to the
1993 Stockholm Peace Research Institute's Yearbook . The most
pertinent aspect of the appendix entitled, "Benefits and threats of
developments in biotechnology and genetic engineering,"
reads:

While modern biotechniques
are revolutionizing medicine and agriculture, the possibility
exists of their misuse for political ends, for clandestine
production and refinement of biological weapons (BW), and for
future development of weapons of mass extermination which could be
used for genocide.

Particular reference is
then made to the possible misuse of knowledge gained from the Human
Genome Project and knowledge about genetic diversity. The element
of critical significance here is contained in the last sub-section
of section VI where the question is clearly stated, "Can't genetic
weapons be developed?" The answer is that if:

investigations provide
sufficient data on ethnic genetic differences between population
groups, it may be possible to use such data to target suitable
micro-organisms to attack known receptor sites for which
differences exist at a cell membrane level or even target DNA
sequences inside cells by viral vectors... [...]

So we have governments financing the development of
these weapons, envisioning them as the Ultimate Weapon in their
battles against their enemies. Or should we say "Final Solution"
because it is racially based. It makes targets of people because of
their genes.

Note: It is governments that do these things. But
when this is discussed in the press, where are our fears turned?
Who are portrayed as the real villains?

Most
of the nearly 30,000 scientists who were involved in biological
research in the USSR during the 1980s are now out of a job because
of the country’s economic difficulties. Last year, some of
them disclosed that they had been approached by certain countries
which have shown particular interest in learning about microbes
that can be used in war to destroy or protect crops, as well as
genetic engineering techniques that could be used to make deadly
germs for which there may be no antidotes.

One prospect that alarms
arms control experts is that biological weapons will fall into the
hands of terrorist or cult groups.

But they are already in the hands of the Israelis
who have not ratified a single international treaty allowing
inspections of their nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. No,
what is important is to vilify the invisible "terrorist", the
"cult", to inculcate in the minds of the readers that the danger is
widespread, invisible, and ready to pounce at any moment. Be
afraid. Be very afraid.

Yes. But be afraid because these governments are
prepared to use them on their enemies...and that may well include
their own citizens.

Could America's mainstream media be any more perfidious and
derelict in its so-called reporting of the current so-called
pneumonia epidemic among U.S. service personnel in Iraq and a few
nearby countries?

A
quick, informal survey of this week's coverage of the pneumonia
story by our bastions of truth and enlightenment — CNN, Fox,
CBS, ABC, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post —
shows that while all covered the story, none mentioned Gulf War
Syndrome which befell maybe as much as 20% of the 700,000 Americans
who served in the 1991 Persian Gulf War (PGW) or depleted uranium
(DU) a radioactive weapon of mass destruction (WMD), outlawed by
international treaty and world courts, that was used exclusively
and extensively by the United States during the PGW and that was
used by the U.S. during the recent invasion of Iraq at 10 times its
PGW rate.

Here's what the mainstream press does tell you: Army brass have
dispatched teams to Iraq and to Landstuhl Army Hospital in Germany
to investigate over 100 mysterious cases of pneumonia that have
stricken American troops currently serving in the Persian Gulf. The
puzzling disease has killed two and put another dozen or so in
serious peril. According to the Army, a common geographical thread
can not be established, a common bacteria can not be
isolated.

True
enough. A military spokeswoman goes on to say that those who have
fallen ill have not been exposed to biological or chemical weapons,
a bald-faced lie. DU is a chemical WMD of the most destructive and
virulent kind. The documentation is in. And the connection between
DU and a "mysterious pneumonia-like disease" was established over
10 years ago. [...]

The
[British] government's microbiological research
establishment at Porton Down spread bacteria through the London
Underground system in the 1960s are contained in two files released
to the public record office in Kew yesterday.

The
trials, which were revealed in the Guardian last year, show how a
powder compact filled with bacteria was dropped on to the Northern
line and samples taken to see how contamination spread over the
network.

Given that these new strands of bioweapons need to
be tested, we might think that the recent outbreak of SARS could be
a field test. The pneumonia from Iraq. But these are not the only
ones. There have been so many of these new strains recently that
the US Government has set up centers to watch for "Unexplained
Deaths" in four US states:

Many new infectious
diseases have been identified in the United States during the last
several decades (1). Among these are AIDS, Legionnaires' disease,
toxic-shock syndrome, hepatitis C, and most recently, hantavirus
pulmonary syndrome; all caused serious illness and
death.

In
each instance, the disease was recognized through investigation of
illness for which no cause had been identified. Retrospective
studies of these and other newly recognized infectious diseases
often identified cases that occurred before the recognition of the
new agent; therefore, a more sensitive detection system may make
the earlier recognition of new infectious agents
possible.

[...] A more systematic
public health approach for the early detection of unknown
infectious agents is needed. This need was acknowledged in
Addressing Emerging Infectious Diseases Threats: A Prevention
Strategy for the United States, a CDC publication about emerging
infections (13). CDC has established an emerging infections program
(EIP) network to conduct special population-based surveillance
projects, develop surveillance methods, pilot and evaluate
prevention strategies, and conduct other epidemiologic and
laboratory studies.

In late 1994, CDC funded
four programs based at state health departments and academic
institutions in California (Alameda, Contra Costa, Kern, and San
Francisco counties), Connecticut, Minnesota, and Oregon. Some
projects are conducted at all program sites and others, depending
on local interest and expertise, at only one or two
sites.

Surveillance for
unexplained deaths due to possibly infectious causes (UDPIC) for
early detection of new infectious diseases is one of the core
activities being conducted at all sites.

Great way to track the field tests, is it
not?

In looking over the press reports in the last few
years, we see that Israel is being singled out, especially since
the "suicide" of David Kelly. This is somewhat normal because much
attention has been focused in recent years on the barbarity of the
Israeli actions against the Palestinians.

As Greg Bishop writes above, the Germans considered
the Jews "insects". Now the Jews turn on the Palestinians in the
same way. So Israel, from the Balfour Declaration through today, is
being set up and portrayed as villains, maneuvered into a
particular situation.

What they do is odious. But is there something even
more odius behind the curtain?

Relations
Between Israel and the Apartheid Regime in South
Africa

We looked yesterday at the issue of Ethnic Weapons,
biological and chemical weapons that can be built to single out
populations by their genetic characteristics. We saw evidence that
Israel may be building such weapons to be used in their final
solution against the Palestinians.

The technology for this program came from the
apartheid regime of South Africa, that is, the Boers who ruled over
the Blacks until the last decade of the 20th century.

The close relations between Israel and the
apartheid regime go back to the mid seventies.

Israel established a Legation in South Africa in 1952 and in
1974 it was upgraded to an Embassy. In 1972 South Africa
established a Consulate General in Tel Aviv which was upgraded to
an Embassy in December 1975. Israel continued to enjoy close
relations with the Apartheid Government in South
Africa.

While many African countries had seen Israel as an
ally in the fifties and early sixties, another country struggling
to survive in a hostile climate, after the wars of 1967 and 1973,
their view had changed and Israel was now the neighborhood bully.
For more on this, see the article Africa, Arabia, and Israel: Forty-Five Years of
Relations.

South Africa had seen two of its neighbors become
"Popular Republics" under Marxist-inspired "People's Armies" after
the fall of the Salazar regime in Portugal in 1974. So both Israel
and South Africa had a siege mentality, believing they were
surrounded by enemies.

[…] In the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel
and the joint forces of Egypt and Syria, almost all of sub-Saharan
Africa broke off diplomatic relations with Israel completely.
And in 1975, the Arab League states succeeded in passing a
motion on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly,
equating Zionism with racism and South African apartheid. It
passed in large measure to the near-automatic support the
resolution received from the sub-Saharan African states.

Although there is evidence that several African nations wished
to maintain covert relations with Israel, privately insisting that
its public condemnation of Israel was merely an act for show,
designed to placate the Arab states, to many Israelis, this
hypocrisy was an unimaginable slight that could not easily be
forgiven. It was said that, in response to this overwhelming
rejection, "Israel pursued its relationship with South Africa with
an element of vindictiveness."

excerpted from the bookIsraeli Foreign Policy
by Jane Hunter
South End Press, 1987

Israel has also been connected with the mercenary forces
deployed by South Africa against Angola and Mozambique. In the
1970s Israel aided the FNLA (Angolan National Liberation Front)
proxy forces organized and trained by the CIA to forestall the
formation of a government led by the MPLA (Popular Movement for the
Liberation of Angola-now the ruling party of Angola).

John
Stockwell, who ran the CIA operation against Angola, recollected
three arms shipments Israel made in cooperation with the CIA: a
plane full of 120 mm shells sent via Zaire to the FNLA and Unita; a
shipment of 50 SA-7 missiles (all of which were duds); a boat-load
sent to neighboring Zaire in a deal that the Israelis had worked
out with President Mobutu, even though the Zairian strong man had
broken ties with Israel two years earlier.

The
political changes in the Southern African region heightened the
security concerns of South Africa. The end of Portuguese rule in
Africa after the 1974 Lisbon coup and the subsequent accession to
power of Communist regimes in Angola (MPLA) and Mozambique
(Freelimo) enhanced the encirclement by Communist forces
regionally. The mid- 1970s also saw the intensification of the
anti-apartheid struggle within South Africa-in the apartheid
government's perception, sponsored by the Communist
forces.

Thus, perceiving itself to be encircled by Communist forces,
the South African government promoted a militarist ideology
legitimising the use of force by the state to counter that threat,
codified in the concept "Total National Strategy" to coordinate its
national security planning. This ultimately involved a nuclear
deterrent capability.

The
arrival of Cuban troops in Angola after the establishment of the
MPLA regime provided the final stimulus. Defence Minister P.W.
Botha spelled out the defence requirements to meet this challenge
as "South Africa can establish a balanced defence force to defend
itself against terrorism...and this we are fully able to
do....Secondly, we must have a deterrent to be able to resist a
fairly heavy conventional attack on South Africa."3 This statement
was quite ambiguous; however, one could reach the conclusion that
both conventional and nuclear capabilities would be pursued by
South Africa. Ambiguity became the trademark of the South African
nuclear policy in the apartheid era.

The attitudes of the two countries can be summed up
by this comment from Jane Hunter, cited above:

It
has also been said that those arms sales are understandable, given
the striking similarities between the two countries in their
day-to-day abuse and repression of their subject populations, South
African blacks and Palestinians under Israeli rule; in their
operating philosophies of apartheid and Zionism; and in their
similar objective situations: "the only two Western nations to
have established themselves in a predominantly nonwhite part of the
world," as a South African Broadcasting Corporation editorial put
it. That understanding, however, is somewhat superficial, and
the focus on similarities of political behavior has somewhat
obscured the view of the breadth and depth of the totality of
Israeli-South African relations and their implications.

As she suggests, this understanding is "somewhat
superficial, as we will see below.

Another factor cementing the relationship was the
embargo placed on South Africa following the riots of 1975 and the
international outcry over the death of Stephen Biko.

The
second period (1976-1980) deals primarily with the response of the
U.S. government and the international community to the South
African government's brutal reaction to the June 1976 student
revolt, the death of Steve Biko (the leader of the Black
Consciousness Movement), South Africa's subsequent security
crackdown on opponents of apartheid and the adoption of the U.N.
Security Council Resolution that called for a mandatory arms
embargo against South Africa.

Because of this, South Africa was isolated, at
least "officially", from the world.

One of the projects Israel and South Africa
undertook together was the development of nuclear weapons. Hunter
continues:

Israel's relations with South Africa are different than its
interactions with any of its other arms clients. That Israel gave
South Africa its nuclear weapons capability underscores the special
nature of Tel Aviv's relations with the white minority government
and begins to describe it - a full-fledged, if covert, partnership
based on the determination of both countries to continue as
unrepentant pariahs and to help each other avoid the consequences
of their behavior.

Arms
industry

Nuclear Apprentice

There are few areas where the respective needs and
advantages of Israel and South Africa dovetailed so perfectly as in
the field of nuclear cooperation.

"The most powerful reason for Israeli willingness to bear
the undesirable consequences of expanded and more open trade with
South Africa may be her desire to acquire material necessary to
manufacture nuclear weapons," wrote a military analyst in 1980.' To
that must be added Israel's great desire to test the nuclear
weapons it already had, and the attractions of South Africa's vast
territory and proximity to even vaster uninhabited spaces-the
Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

Then
at the point in its nuclear development where it was fashioning
sophisticated bombs (devices which use less nuclear material but
have infinitely greater explosive force than the "primitive" bomb
dropped by the U.S. on Hiroshima), Israel would find it
particularly helpful to observe the performance, explosive force
and fallout of a detonated weapon.

Since 1984, Israel had been operating a plutonium extraction
plant in a secret underground bunker at Dimona in the Negev Desert.
Built by the French in the late 1950s, the Dimona plant also
included facilities for manufacturing atomic bomb components. At
the time of the 1976 accords, Israel was preparing to build an
adjoining plant for the extraction of lithium 6, tritium and
deuterium, materials required for sophisticated thermonuclear
weapons.

Israel's reasons for devoting what had to have been a
significant portion of its scant resources to such an ambitious
nuclear weapons program - nuclear experts have recently ranked it
as the world's sixth nuclear power, after the U.S., the USSR,
Britain, France and China - have been variously offered as the
desire to develop a credible deterrent to attack by its neighbors
and the desire to substitute that deterrent for at least part of
the costly conventional arsenal that Israel, with one of the
world's most powerful military forces, maintains, and also (with
much less frequency) as an "umbrella" over a partial withdrawal
from the occupied territories.

Note: Details about the Blaauw case are provided in the Africa
Confidential article. ..... According to information released
regarding the secret mid-1980s extortion trial of Johann Blaauw, a
brigadier in the South African army, South Africa and _Israel_
participated in four clandestine nuclear deals in the
mid-1970s. Blaauw was found not guilty of trying to extort
mining concessions from Minister of Mines Fanie Botha in a trial in
1989 [1].

The
first nuclear deal occurred in shortly after the Yom Kippur War in
1973 when "Benjamine," a member of the Israel Council for
Scientific Liaison, asked Blaauw to acquire South African
yellowcake which Israel could use for weapon-grade plutonium.
("Benjamine" is believed to be Benjamin Blumberg, the head of the
Israeli Intelligence division Lish Ka l-Kishrei (Lakam)
[2].)

After discussions with Gen. Hendryk van den Bergh, head of the
Bureau of State Security (BOSS), South African Prime Minister John
Vorster eventually agreed to sell 50 metric tons of yellowcake to
Israel. The deal was handled by Minister of Mines Fanie Botha, who
replaced Piet Koornhog [Koornhof] after Koornhog opposed the sale.
Uranium Enrichment Corporation Chairman Ampie Roux was also aware
of the deal.

During his testimony, Blaauw said that "a high degree of
confidence was developing between the South African and Israeli
governments which involved the exchange of military technology,
joint aeronautic ventures, and the supply of 'know-how' by Israel
to South Africa in regard to the manufacture of
weaponry."

There is evidence of a joint nuclear test carried
out in the Indian Ocean in September, 1979. Ruchita Beri, cited
above, writes:

1979
Nuclear Test

On
September 22, 1979, a US Vela satellite detected an unusual "double
flash" indicative of a nuclear test, in an "area of the Indian
Ocean and South Atlantic including portions of the Antarctic
continent, and the southern part of Africa." In fact, some have
claimed it to be a joint Israeli-South African nuclear test.
South Africa denied that it had conducted a nuclear test. As late
as March 1993, the AEC's Chairman, Waldo Stumpf, is reported to
have said, " If it was a nuclear explosion, South Africa was
definitely not involved.

I
doubt that it was a nuclear [test] because no radioactive fallout
was detected." Eighteen years after the event, Aziz Pahad, the
Deputy Foreign Minister, confirmed that South Africa conducted a
nuclear test in the South Indian Ocean in 1979. This admission has
laid to rest the controversy surrounding the test.

We can see that the relations between the two
countries were very close.

Not only were nuclear weapons part of the
partnership, but strategy and tactics in dealing with their
enemies, both internal and external were also an important part of
the collaboration. Jane Hunter again:

The
South Africans began teaching the lessons of Israel's 1967 war at
their maneuver school, and Israeli advisers began teaching the
Boers the arts of suppressing a captive population and keeping
hostile neighbors off balance...

The white government's practice of domestic
counterinsurgency combines outright military brutality with the
extensive use of informers and collaborators. It is impossible
to know how many refinements of these age-old techniques have been
borrowed from the Israelis' occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and
the Golan Heights.

The Israeli system of village leagues is obviously
comparable to the hated town councils imposed on segregated
townships by the apartheid government. The collective punishment
employed by the Israelis, such as the destruction of a whole
family's home when one of its members is arrested as a suspect in
an act of resistance, has lately been matched by the recent South
African practices of sealing off townships, and assaulting entire
funeral processions.

What
is perhaps more salient is the South African victims' perceptions
of Israel's involvement in their oppression and how readily that
perception is communicated...

And when the population you are systematically
trying to annihilate fights back, how do you justify it? Of course,
you call it "terrorism". Hunter continues:

The Frontline States

The
South Africans noted that their May, 1983 aerial attack (dubbed
Operation Shrapnel) on Mozambique's capital, Maputo, was
analogous to Israel's attack on Beirut the previous summer.
One analyst, Joseph Hanlon, believes that one of South Africa's
objectives in the attack was to see how its version of events would
play in the media. It was received very well indeed, according to
Hanlon, with the Western press accepting South Africa's claim that
its attack was in "retaliation" for an ANC attack and that ANC
"bases" were hit.

Instead, the South African Air Force hit a child-care center
and private houses with "special fragmentation rockets," leaving 6
dead and 40 wounded. This follows the Israeli practice in Lebanon
of speaking about PLO installations while civilians are the actual
targets, and attacking with particularly heinous anti-personnel
weapons-cluster bombs and phosphorous bombs.

The
victims of South Africa's angst are not blind to the similarity of
attacks-or motives.

President Samora Machel likened the Israeli Government to the
Pretoria regime. He said that because of its inability to contain
the fury of the Palestinian people led by the PLO, the Zionist
regime is trying to transfer the war to other regions.

So
reported Mozambican radio shortly after Israeli aircraft bombed PI
headquarters in Tunisia in October 1985.

The
model provided by Israel, which punishes every internal act of
resistance and violent act outside its jurisdiction with a bombing
raid on Palestinian targets in Lebanon-almost always refugee camps
cynically identified by the Israelis as "terrorist bases" or
"headquarters"-has served South Africa well. In January 1986,
the white government's radio delivered a commentary on "the
malignant presence" of "terrorism" in neighboring states and said
"there's only one answer now, and that's the Israeli answer."
Israel had managed to survive "by striking at terrorists wherever
they exist."

In May 1986, South Africa demonstrated that it had assumed
the right to attack its neighbors at a time and on a pretext of its
own choosing. The chosen time was during a visit by the Eminent
Persons Group of the Commonwealth of Nations, which was attempting
to establish negotiations between the apartheid regime and its
opposition. The victims-Zambia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, all
Commonwealth members-were chosen for their alleged harboring of
"terrorists"; the real victims were South African exiles and an
employee of the government of Botswana. The South Africans said
they had attacked "international terrorism" and compared their
raids to the Israeli attack on Tunisia and the U.S. attack on Libya
in April 1986.

The
attack was similar in style to Israel's 1985 attack on Tunisia.
Initially, the Israelis had been threatening Jordan and perhaps
because King Hussein of Jordan was at the time on an official visit
to the U.S., the Israelis chose to take revenge for the killing of
three Israelis (believed to be top Mossad agents) in Larnaca,
Cyprus on the PLO in Tunisia.

Two
weeks after its three-pronged attack on its Commonwealth neighbors,
South Africa attacked the Angolan harbor of Namibia, firing their
version of the Israeli Gabriel missile.

When
Israel reestablished relations with Zaire (in 1982) and began to
train Zairian forces in the Shaba border province, Angola had cause
for concern. The leader of the FNLA had been Holden Roberto,
brother-in-law of Zairian president Mobutu, Israel's new client. In
1986, it would be established that Zaire acted as a funnel for
"covert" U.S. military aid for the Unita forces of Jonas
Savimbi.

In
1983, the Angolan News Agency reported that Israeli military
experts were training Unita forces in Namibia. Since Zaire began
receiving military aid and training from Tel Aviv, Angola has been
ill at ease. Its worries increased after discovering
that:

Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon was personally
involved in the organization, training and equipping of "commando"
units of the army of Zaire, especially organized for missions along
the borders of the RPA [Angola].

In
1984, the Financial Times (London) wrote of "joint Israeli-South
African support for Unita forces." Other sources also report the
transfer of Israeli arms and financial support to Unita.

In
1983, Angola's President Jose Eduardo dos Santos told Berkeley,
California Mayor Eugene (Gus) Newport that an Israeli pilot had
been shot down during a South African attack. The Angolan President
showed Newport pictures of captured Israeli weapons. The following
year, Luanda reported the capture of three mercenaries who said
they had been trained by Israeli instructors in Zaire.

Israel has also been involved with the Mozambican "contras,"
the South African-backed MNR (Mozambique National Resistance or
"Renamo"), which has brought great economic and social distress to
Mozambique. Renamo has a particular reputation for ideological
incoherence, being regarded by most other right-wing insurgencies
as a gang of cutthroats. For several years there have been stories
coming from Southern Africa of captured mercenaries of Renamo who
say they were trained in neighboring Malawi-one of the four nations
to maintain relations with Israel after the Organization of African
Unity (OAU) declared a diplomatic embargo in 1973-by Israelis. And
more than one report has told of "substantial Israeli aid" to the
MNR, thought to have been funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia as
well as South Africa and former Portuguese nationalists.

Two countries, both with the mentality of the
"besieged", begin carrying out attacks against their neighbors
under the cover of "defence". Sometimes "to see how its version of
events would play in the media".

In fact, it looks as if they were field-testing the
strategies and tactics that the Bush Reich is now imposing upon the
US population and the rest of the world.

The links between Israel, the apartheid regime, and
the CIA are well-established. It is not too much to suspect that
this information was being shared by the intelligence agencis of
the three countries.

But as we are trying to see "behind the scenes", as
it were, we leave you with one last item to reflect upon. Remember
a few years ago how the anti-globalization forces were growing
stronger? Remember the Conference Against Racism held in South
Africa? Remember how Israel was becoming isolated because of its
butchering of the Palestinians in the period following Sharon's
provocative visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000?

The
joint US-Israeli walkout from the United Nations conference on
racism in Durban, South Africa was something of a foregone
conclusion. It was a stage-managed affair, the purpose of which was
to portray all opposition to the Zionist state's persecution of the
Palestinians as inherently racist.

The
original draft resolution to the UN conference stated its "deep
concern" at the "increase of racist practices of Zionism and
anti-Semitism" and spoke of the emergence of "movements based on
racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist
movement, which is based on racial superiority." It made direct
criticisms of Israeli repression against the Palestinians on the
West Bank as a "new kind of apartheid, a crime against
humanity."

The
US and Israel insisted on the removal of any direct reference to
Israel.

[…] Israel has also
achieved some success in winning a more friendly response from
Russia, which is again seeking to challenge US domination of Middle
Eastern affairs by offering itself as an honest broker between
Israel and the Arab regimes. During the Durban conference Sharon
visited Moscow for talks with President Putin to discuss the common
threat posed by Islamic terrorism-Sharon has even indicated
sympathy for Russia's bloody suppression of Islamic rebel forces in
Chechnya-the possibility of a further one million Jewish
immigrants from Russia to Israel, armaments and other trade
deals.

[…]Shimon Samuels,
the head of the Jewish caucus in Durban, declared, "We saw an NGO
document that would have made [Hitler's Nazi Party propaganda
chief] Goebbels happy. And now it is clear that we are going to
see, at the end of the government conference, resolutions that can
be called the UN's Mein Kampf."

Mordechai Yedid, Israel's
official spokesman at the conference, insisted there could be no
condemnation of Israel in the resolution. He told the plenary
meeting prior to the US-Israeli departure, "anti-Zionism, the
denial of Jews the basic right to a home, is nothing but
anti-Semitism, pure and simple." Yedid derided the Arab regimes
proposals to criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as "a
group of states for whom the terms 'racism', 'discrimination', and
even 'human rights' simply do not appear in their domestic
lexicon". The UN resolution, he continued, was "the most racist
declaration in a major international organization since World War
Two".

His
remarks prompted a walkout by Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher,
who represents one of the most pro-US of all the Arab
states.

Announcing its withdrawal
from the conference, US Secretary of State Colin Powell denounced
any attempt to single out "only one country in the world, Israel,
for censure and abuse'" and any suggestion that apartheid existed
in Israel. For his part, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres
proclaimed, "We were portrayed in an insulting and baseless manner
as a colonial nation... The Arab League, all of it, has come out
against peace."

The
right-wing media in Israel marched to the same tune. An article in
the September 4 Jerusalem Post by Yossi Olmert described the Durban
conference as "the mirror image of the Nuremberg rallies, in which
the Nazis propagated their anti-Jewish messages, striving hard to
delegitimise the Jews, as an inevitable step leading to their
eventual liquidation." He conceded reluctantly that "not all the
participants in Durban are Nazis, maybe not even a majority of
them, but too many are, and they clearly give this shameful
gathering its true character".

We wonder what Sharon was discussing with Putin,
aside from the "common threat posed by Islamic
fundamentalism".

Did you happen to notice the date?

Five days latter the world would explode. The field
trials carried out for thirty years by the Israelis and South
Africans would be implemented throughout the world. The battle
against "terrorism" would become the justification for imposing the
New American Tyranny on the world.